Not Quite Into the ‘Mouth of the Wolf’
Amanda Knox goes back to Italy with her husband
Christopher Robinson, a Seattle-based writer and poet, has directed the new documentary Mouth of the Wolf, currently streaming on Hulu. Mouth of the Wolf offers Robinson’s take on the case of Amanda Knox, the young American woman who went to prison in Italy for four years on charges of murder and slander, who ended up marrying him. Specifically, he is following Knox’s attempts to seek “closure” of her lurid saga by meeting the prosecutor who led the case against her.
Hulu presents Mouth of the Wolf as a straightforward documentary, and Knox’s many fans and admirers will take it at face value. But for those who might hope to find an objective, above-the-fray account of Knox’s conviction, imprisonment, release, and post-prison activism, a word of caution: a documentary directed by her husband, and co-produced by Robinson and Knox herself, might be just a tad selective in its use of facts and its choices of interview subjects. Given its provenance, it might not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about her case.
Indeed, from the beginning of the production, it breaks all the rules of documentaries that do real work and ask tough questions to get at the truth of a controversial case. This is more Melania than Serial.
Robinson’s voice-over narration sets the tone early on when, amid a few brief images and sound-bytes from Knox’s trials and media coverage, he states that the Italian prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, went after Knox on the basis of “precisely zero evidence.” That is quite a thing to assert — given the actual evidence — but Robinson drops it in casually. The director then tells the story of how he met Knox when, as a journalist for a small Seattle paper, she covered a reading and launch party for Robinson’s first novel. To cut a long story short, today they are married and the parents of two small children.
As an adult in America, Knox has written books and been involved in American shows that have shown her Italian trials in a dim light, while appearing at events organized by advocates for the formerly incarcerated. But, as fulfilled as Knox’s post-conviction life may be on many levels, she still has haters out there, Robinson reminds us, and has still felt the urge to achieve the aforementioned closure by meeting with others involved in her case and encouraging them to see her for the smart, kind, sweet, open, and “goofy” (Robinson’s word) person she is. Sit down with Amanda for a moment. Does she look like a monster? Does she sound like one?
Here is where Mouth of the Wolf, like the 2016 Netflix documentary Amanda Knox and other sympathetic treatments, engages in a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that has proven all too effective with American audiences who are not familiar with the trial transcripts and evidence in the case. Mouth of the Wolf, like the other pro-Knox films, takes the mature, sensitive, well-spoken adult version of its subject and tells the viewer, This is who Amanda is. From that premise, it makes a sly leap to a quite different proposition: This is who Amanda has always been. You see the polished public figure, and you empathize with her. You do not see the immature, foul-mouthed, abrasive, slovenly, promiscuous twenty-year-old that some witnesses — friends of the murdered Meredith Kercher — described on the witness stand. A young woman who burst into song at inappropriate times in public, did not do her share of housekeeping, and did not get along with Kercher. And who showed up in court, after the death of her housemate, openly mocking the court and the victim, in a shirt bearing the Beatles lyric “All You Need Is Love.”
Character assassination is not guilt, but no amount of whitewashing will make the evidence of who she was and what she was convicted of doing, go away.
Mouth of the Wolf thinks Knox needs no redemption arc — who even cares about any of that now? “Amanda” is the lovable woman you see now on your screen. That is who she has always been. Don’t flirt with misogyny and suggest otherwise, if you value your career. In the opening moments and at other points in Mouth of the Wolf, we see Knox weep right before the camera, in despair and exasperation at what a cruel world has done to her. Across the pond, in Britain, the Kercher family, one imagines, might also have done their share of crying, but the documentary is uninterested in them. Amanda’s plight, Amanda’s suffering, Amanda’s cause are front and center, facts be damned.
And those facts matter here. Driven by her need for “closure,” Knox reaches out to Mignini to request an in-person meeting, but does not receive a reply at first. She keeps at it — because he needs to redeem himself in her eyes. Finally, her requests bear fruit and the prosecutor agrees to a meeting. But that means returning to Italy, the source of so many traumatic memories. Even with husband Robinson in tow, the film implies, only a strong, determined woman could think of making such a trek. Brave Amanda. The documentary conveniently neglects to mention that she avoided Italy when her case was actually under review in 2015 and some, reasonably enough, expected her to be there to take the stand and confront the actual evidence in a courtroom with Mignini.
Amid footage of preparations for the trip and the voyage itself, Robinson presents interviews with members of the Innocence Project and with Edna Mellas, Knox’s mother, who repeatedly calls Mignini incompetent and voices outrage at what her daughter went through. Knox’s mother has an unsurprisingly low opinion of the man who prosecuted Amanda. Of course her mom believes her, no matter what. We do not hold it against the mom, but for Robinson to adduce this as proof of anything shows an unwitting sense of desperation. If Robinson has a clue how inappropriate, and frankly silly, it is to present Knox’s mother as a witness against the prosecution, he does not let on.
If this were not reality TV but a serious documentary — one that sought to engage with other viewpoints and actually brave the mouth of the wolf — then Robinson would have lined up at least a few credible prosecution sources to interview to resolve the many problems with evidence about Knox’ actions and assertions.
The only time in the entire film we hear a view not 100 percent in keeping with the pro-Knox line is when Robinson shows a few seconds of a clip of Mignini (correctly) telling Italian media that Knox’s acquittal may have been a judicial mistake, and (correctly) pointing out that the theoretical possibility of DNA contamination does not, by itself, amount to a defense, because there must be actual evidence and a plausible theory of contamination. The only reason we see that clip at all is so we understand why returning to Italy must have been so traumatizing for Knox. Look — those loonies still think she’s guilty!
Had he been serious about finding closure for his wife, Robinson could have given a few moments of screen time to one or more of the following people:
- Barbie Latza Nadeau, the Newsweek correspondent who covered the trial as it played out in Perugia in 2009, and who has written about the heavy-handed tactics of the “Seattle message machine” that sought to influence media coverage of the crime and the trial, and shape public perceptions, in a manner favorable to Knox;
- Rudy Guede, the third person (along with Knox and Rafaele Sollecito) convicted for the murder, who was released from jail in 2021, is not facing any more potential prison time, yet still insists that he is “101 percent sure” Knox was at the cottage when Kercher died;
- either of the two postal policemen who showed up at the cottage the morning after the murder, about an unrelated matter, and quickly judged that the broken window and mess in Filomena Romanelli’s room (where Guede supposedly entered) did not look like a real break-in, i.e., it looked like a cover-up on the part of Knox and Sollecito;
- any one of Romanelli’s friends who showed up at the cottage the morning after the murder and heard Knox lie to the effect that Kercher always kept her door closed, even when she went to the shower, when others knew Kercher not to keep the door closed as a matter of course;
- any one of the carabinieri who were present at the police station when Knox framed Patrick Lumumba for the murder, who heard her change her alibi, and who have explicitly contradicted Knox’s bogus claims that she was hit and pressured into making a false accusation.
Despite the trip’s stated purpose, Robinson shows no interest in hearing what these people might have to say, or even presenting a proper interview with Mignini himself.
Wait,” you say, “don’t we meet Mignini in person, in the final scenes of Mouth of the Wolf — a movie entirely aimed at Knox revisiting him and receiving final absolution from him? No, we don’t really hear much of anything from the horse’s, er, wolf’s mouth. Mignini does appear on-screen for a few seconds, here and there, but there is never a proper interview. The first meeting between Knox and Mignini happens off-camera, followed by Knox and Robinson’s brief paraphrase of what the prosecutor supposedly said. The second meeting is informal, with Mignini laughing and smiling as he sits beside Knox, looking like a genial grandfather. Given the language barrier, it is not clear that Mignini knows what words are exchanged in this scene of the film or how the filmmakers are presenting his mumbled utterances to the world. We don’t actually hear Mignini do an about-face on any of the vast evidence of Knox’s involvement in the murder that came out during the criminal trials.
That encounter with Mignini may be Robinson’s, and Knox’s idea of closure, but Robinson has not tried to address the material facts of the case: Her recorded admission, in a discussion with her mom, that she was at the cottage when the murder happened. The presence of bruises, consistent with the size of a woman’s fingertips, on the victim’s neck. Knox’s footprints in blood, revealed with luminol, in her own room and elsewhere in the cottage. The DNA on the bra clasp and handle of the knife whose blade had traces of the victim’s blood on it. The bloody footprint on the bathmat, in a size not matching either of Guede’s feet. The presence of a chestnut hair — Knox’s hair color — on the victim’s bra. Knox’s off-putting outburst, in the presence of several people, that “[Meredith] had her fucking throat cut!” Knox’s false accusation — repeated in writing, more than once, not under any duress — of Patrick Lumumba, which was obviously intended to divert suspicion from Knox. The strange, rambling email protesting her innocence that Knox wrote to people at home in Seattle, when she was not under arrest, and which brings to mind someone who bursts into a room to proclaim “I didn’t do it!” without having been accused. And on and on. These are the items in the mouth of the wolf — they are frightening, but there is no closure without resolving them.
Robinson gives up any pretense of documentary when he tells us near the end of Mouth of the Wolf that the project is his “love letter” to Amanda Knox. How sweet. Look, we all love the people closest to us, but let that never be confused with a documentary filmmaker’s legitimate work. Someday, just maybe, we will have a love letter to another young woman, Meredith Kercher, who left this world in the most horrific circumstances at just 21. Maybe that love letter will provide the world some sense of the person Meredith was and the unspeakable ordeal her family has gone through in the years since her murder, as Knox preens and parades around before the cameras trying to whip up sympathy with her claims of persecution.
You May Also Like
-
March 25, 2025 -
January 17, 2025 -
January 22, 2025
What utter slop. I won’t bother taking apart this entire review because I have neither the time nor interest in correcting it line by line by line.
Mr. Washburn, I’ve read a past version of every single “point” you tried to make in this mess. Except for “the presence of a chestnut hair on the victim’s bra”. Hadn’t heard that one before. LOL. You probably lifted, then mangled, that gem from Nick Van Der Leek’s equally stupid “blonde hair in Kercher’s palm” which turned out to be fiber.
I’ll limit myself to three things that rank among the most absurd in this rubbish.
First, any mention of Guede. Even Mignini admits in Guede’s own book that he knows Guede is guilty. “Not facing any more prison time”? – why is this meaningless point even offered? – apparently Mr. Washburn is unaware that Guede IS currently facing potentially more prison time relating to an ongoing trial for which he is charged with beating AND raping his former girlfriend.
For the record, Guede did NOT testify during the Hellmann appeal despite the fact that, with his own trial & sentence finalized, he should have been the prosecution, i.e., Mignini’s, star witness. Forget a mere documentary, Mr. Washburn. Just tell us why Guede didn’t testify against Knox before a judge? We’ll wait.
Second, Mignini was not the prosecutor present in 2015’s Supreme Court hearings. This is one of many examples showing how Mr. Washburn has no clue about what he’s writing about. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Third, characterizing the police coercion Knox was subjected to as “bogus claims that she was hit and pressured into making a false accusation”. Despicable. Not only does Mr. Washburn exhibit ignorance about the Reid Technique, based on 1940-50s science, he ignores the reality that a 20-year-old woman who spoke Italian (then) at the level of a 12-year-old, with no disinterested translator, no lawyer present and conveniently, no videotapes to review, might have succombed to police browbeating.
Mr. Washburn, do us all a favor and stick to fiction going forward.
Ms. Smitherman, your angry reply to my review of The Mouth of the Wolf works the way that many “straw man” arguments do — attack claims or implications that are not actually in the article, and then call the author of the article “despicable” and “sloppy.”
Please read the article again to understand just how inattentive your initial reading of it was and how wide of the mark your comments are. First off, I never said Mignini was the prosecutor presiding over the 2015 courtroom proceedings that Knox courageously ducked out of attending. Of course he wasn’t. It would be a strange thing indeed if the same judges presided over both criminal trials and subsequent appeals of their own lower court decisions. Italy has far too sophisticated and respected a judicial system for that to occur. The substantive issue here is whether Knox can and should have attended the 2015 hearings to address the forensic and witness evidence that Mignini painstakingly analyzed over hundreds of pages in his case summaries, closing arguments, and other judicial statements, which are available online in English and Italian. Knox did not return to Italy in 2015. What was she afraid would come to light? Robinson’s “documentary” doesn’t say. Robinson acknowledges that feelings against Knox run very high in Italy, without ever attempting to explore why the view might be so different there from the one that people like yourself hold. Maybe the Knox propaganda machine doesn’t have quite the same reach in Italy that it does elsewhere, and Italians base their view of the case on evidence, not PR.
Second, it is curious indeed that you insert the acronym “LOL” in your comment regarding the chestnut-colored hair and suggest that this important piece of evidence was “lifted” and then “mangled” from another source. This, and other pieces of evidence, come from a source duly linked in the article, in the reference to “material facts of the case,” which you were evidently in too much of a hurry to notice. If you any have counterevidence that calls this critical smoking gun into question, then feel free to share it. But writing a childish “LOL” in response to a fact presented as part of a forensic analysis is not quite a dispositive legal argument.
Third, regarding Rudy Guede. I noted in the article that he is not facing more potential prison time for the Knox case and has no vested interest in evading or minimizing his culpability in that specific context. The more recent issue you have raised regarding his girlfriend is untimely and irrelevant.
Finally, witnesses who were present when Knox framed Patrick Lumumba have testified that she was not hit or coerced but was treated kindly. Of course, from the defense bar’s point of view, there is no such thing as an uncoerced confession or a freely made false accusation. But, again, the snark in your comments here does not refute a smoking gun — one of many damning facts that clearly point to Knox’s guilt. Your attempts to discredit the case against her fail miserably.
Mr. Washburn, don’t flatter yourself by confusing anger with criticism. They’re not the same.
RE: Mignini in 2015, you said “confront the actual evidence in a courtroom WITH Mignini”. Then you attempt to mislead the reader by mentioning “judges” as though they were one and the same as prosecutors. Where’s the eye roll emoji when I need it? Regardless, the substantive issue is not “can and should,” it is whether she was or was not required to be there. She wasn’t. So you falsely theorize she must have been “afraid” of something. You sarcastically state Knox “courageously ducked” out of attending. Oh, but next up, my goodness me….I’M the one being childish by writing a simple LOL. Here is what’s childish, Mr. Washburn: the (thankfully tiny) remaining band of guilters who cling to the myth of a Knox propaganda machine.
As for your “source duly linked in the article”, ah yes, one of TJMK’s projects. Beautiful. But you are the one who was in too much of a hurry to proofread your own work. For the source states “It also had a light chestnut hair on it, similar in color to Sollecito’s hair”. Tsk tsk, Mr. Washburn. Had that actually been Sollecito’s hair on Kercher’s bra….game over. But he was acquitted. So reasonable people can safely assume forensic testing showed it wasn’t his hair.
As for Knox’s coercion, oh yes, “witnesses”, read police officials, are certainly known for their honesty in these situations. Absent the Italian fluency, absent the disinterested interpreter, absent the (legally required) attorney, absent the videos to which to refer back, I’ll stick with Knox’s word. And speaking of snark, you statement about defense lawyers is full of it. I kindly suggest you further educate yourself about the Reid technique and why it is problematic. Saul Kassin is one of the world’s leading experts in this area. Read his book “Duped”.
Regarding Rudy Guede…”untimely and irrelevant”…”the more recent issue”? Some would say his assault/rape charges fit into a pattern of abuse of women, but you do you.
Here’s the most important thing, though. As I already stated:
For the record, Guede did NOT testify during the Hellmann appeal despite the fact that, with his own trial & sentence finalized, he should have been the prosecution, i.e., Mignini’s, star witness. Forget a mere documentary, Mr. Washburn. Just tell us why Guede didn’t testify against Knox before a judge?
Actually, my bad, Guede did testify during Hellmann but only re: a conversation he had with another inmate. Guede refused to testify re: the specific events of the night of 11/1/07 at the cottage where Meredith was murdered. He has never, at any time or place, been cross-examined by Knox’s or Sollecito’s lawyers. Why? I realize he didn’t “have” to testify. Why didn’t he want to? To see that Knox & Sollecito were held accountable for their roles? Why didn’t Mignini WANT him to be their star witness?
Please give me your sincere opinion about this. If you do, you will be the very first guilter that I have asked, of probably several dozen, to do so.
No, Knox was not required to be there for the 2015 hearings. Is this somehow significant? If, as she and the documentary claim, there is “precisely zero evidence” implicating her in the murder, you do have to wonder what she was so afraid of and why her attempts at “closure” — visiting Italy in person — have now been made at such a safe (temporal) distance, with no ruling pending.
No honest person can view the gigantic crowds outside the courthouse vocally expressing their outrage at the 2015 decision (misleadingly painted as an “acquittal,” which ignores the nuances of Italian law), and try to portray the “guilters” as just a tiny and marginal band of incels with discredited opinions. As I noted in my earlier reply, the general public in Italy has a markedly different view of the case from the view common here. As do Britons who know what Meredith Kercher’s family has gone through. Mouth of the Wolf inadvertently acknowledges the reality of Italians’ strong belief in Knox’s guilt, but never makes any serious attempt to account for it. Many Americans who have never read the trial transcripts or judges’ opinions have accepted the notion of Knox’s innocence because, well, they heard it on the telly, and morning talk shows wouldn’t ever tell you something biased or unreliable or simplify a complex case, now, would they? You yourself are so unfamiliar with the facts of the case that you don’t seem to know a thing about the role of restrictive legal agreements (as a precondition for speaking on the record at all) in limiting what can be asked, answered, or what subjects can even be broached on the talk shows that are some Americans’ sole source of information about this case.
You dwell on what Guede did or did not do during the various trials, but have nothing to say about the findings of three highly experienced forensic experts that Kercher’s wounds were consistent with multiple attackers. Guede was obviously not the sole assailant, and no one seriously argues that a break-in happened in Filomena Romanelli’s room, providing him access to the cottage. The attempt at staging the break-in was amateur beyond belief.
Guede has spoken in interviews about what happened the night of the murder and reiterated he is “100 percent sure” Knox was present. It’s really an academic point, because we have confirmation of that fact from another individual who is arguably somewhat relevant to the case. Her name is Amanda Knox. When her mom came to visit her in the police station at Perugia, she said she couldn’t lie because she was there when the murder happened. It was that admission that led to her being arrested. Once again, she was not under arrest during her supposed “interrogation” in the police station and could have got up and walked out any time she liked. She maintained her alibi until the police told her that Sollecito (who was in a different room at the station) was no longer vouching for it. She then abruptly accused a totally innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, of the murder and repeated this bogus accusation multiple times in writing when there was no questioning going on. Innocent people don’t change their alibis repeatedly and write “I am afraid of him” about someone they know to be innocent.
I’ll quote Alan Dershowitz again: “There are thousands of people in jail in the United States on the basis of far less evidence than was presented against Amanda Knox…. The evidence against her is very, very considerable.”
Dershowitz also said, “In fifty years of practicing law, I have never seen more one-sided coverage of a case in the U.S. media.”